The general description contained in the bill, such as "and all other articles of like character," appears to confine the articles referred to in the bill to those of an explosive character. There are many articles which are dangerous, from their inflammable nature or otherwise, but which are not explosive, and it would be desirable that some effectual remedy should be given in the case of shipments of dangerous goods of any kind. The 23d section of the British merchant-shipping act of 1873 uses the following words, which seem wide enough for all practical purposes, viz, "any dangerous goods, that is to say, aqua-fortis, vitriol, naphtha, benzine, gunpowder, lucifer-matches, nitro-glycerine, petroleum, and any other goods of a dangerous nature." If these or similar words could be introduced into the law of the United States, it might be a great improvement. It is to be observed that section 4 of the bill only specifies the articles "oil of vitriol, unslaked lime, inflammable matches, or gunpowder." Another defect would appear to be that the only remedy provided by the United States law is the power to prosecute the shipper of dangerous goods for a misdemeanor. There are numerous provisions in that law for punishing the ship-owner, and the statutes seem to be prepared on the assumption that the ship-owner is the person desirous of putting the dangerous goods on board his ship. This, however, is not the case. The great body of ship-owners, particularly those engaged in the pas senger-trade, are most anxious to keep all dangerous goods out of their ships, and the difficulty that arises in excluding such goods is due to the fact that their owners, knowing the ship-owner's objection to carry them, use various devices for concealing their nature. It is for this reason that some remedy against the shippers, more easily put in force than that of prosecution for a misdemeanor, would be extremely desirable. The 25th section of the British merchant act of 1873 gives power to the master or owner to open and inspect cases suspected of containing dangerous goods. The 26th section authorizes the master or owner to throw such goods overboard. The 27th section contains a most important provision, enabling any court having admiralty jurisdiction to declare such goods forfeited, and to dispose of them as the court directs. There is often great difficulty in proving a case against a shipper, as it frequently occurs that he is a mere agent for other parties, and that he is ignorant of the nature of the goods. The real principal in the transaction is generally the consignee, and yet it may be impossible to prove his connection with the matter, and as the law stands at present in the United States the ship-owner is compelled to deliver to the consignee the dangerous goods which he has carried, upon their arrival at the port of destination. The shipper of dangerous goods is therefore not discouraged from continuing the practice. Power of forfeiture, under the direction of a legal tribunal, appears to be the only mode of meeting such a case. Lord Derby has instructed me to express the hope of Her Majesty's government that the above observations and suggestions may be considered by the Government of the United States of sufficient importance to be worthy of attention, and possibly of adoption, if the Legislature of the United States should deem it expedient. I have, &c., EDW'D THORNTON. No. 99. Sir Edward Thornton to Mr. Hunter. WASHINGTON, September 6, 1876. (Received September 6.) SIR: In compliance with an instruction which I have received from the Earl of Derby, I have the honor to inclose copy of an extract from a report by Major Cameron, the British Commissioner on the late North American Boundary Commission, relative to the assistance rendered him by the Government of the United States and its officers on various occasions, and to convey to that Government the sense entertained by Her Majesty's government of the courtesy and friendship shown by General Terry, commanding the Missouri Division of the United States Army, to Captain Anderson, the chief astronomer to the Commission, on his arrival at Duluth with a party of royal engineers, as reported by Major Cameron. I have, &c., EDW'D THORNTON. [Inclosure.] North American Boundary Commission.—Extract from Major Cameron's Report. I have also to acknowledge the courtesy and friendly consideration shown by General Terry, commanding the Missouri division of the United States Army, who, on receiving Captain Anderson's report of his arrival at Duluth with a detachment of the royal engineers, immediately welcomed him, and offered the services of one of his staf officers to facilitate the journey through Minnesota and Dakota to Pembina. And here, too, may be a proper place for me to bring to your lordship's notice the great facilities afforded to me in the execution of Her Majesty's commission by the Government of the United States, who issued instructions through the customs department to expedite the transmission of stores, &c., for the British party through United States territory. I have also to note my acknowledgment of the assistance rendered to me by the United States consuls at Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Hamilton, and to record the unvarying courtesy and consideration shown to myself and all the members of the British expedition by the United States officials at the ports of entry Detroit, Duluth, and Pembina. EXTRADITION TREATY. No. 100. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. [Telegram.] WASHINGTON, February 12, 1876. E. D. Winslow, charged with large forgeries, escaped by steamer Rotterdam, under name of Clifton, and is said to be in London. Obtain arrest, if possible, and advise Department promptly. FISH, No. 101. General Schenck to Mr. Fish. [Telegram.] LONDON, February 15, 1876. Winslow arrested. Send charge with proof at once. SCHENCK. No. 102. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. [Telegram.] WASHINGTON, February 17, 1876. Officer, with papers for Winslow's extradition, sails Saturday. No. 103. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. FISH, No. 845] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 17, 1876. SIR: Information of a trustworthy character having reached this Department that one Ezra D. Winslow, charged with the commission of the crime of forgery in the State of Massachusetts, is now under arrest in London, awaiting extradition, I have to request you, pursuant to the provision of the tenth article of the treaty of 1842, between the United States and Great Britain, to make application to the proper authorities for the delivery of said Winslow into the custody of Mr. Albion P. Dearborn, who is duly authorized to receive the criminal, and to bring him back to the United States for trial. Mr. Dearborn, who is provided with the necessary papers in the case, sails at once for London, and will present himself at the legation. I am, &c., HAMILTON FISH. No. 104. Mr. Fish to General Schenck. No. 849.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 21, 1876. SIR: A conversation occurred on the 17th instant, between Sir Edward Thornton and myself, in reference to the course which might be adopted by the British government on a demand being preferred for the extradition of Winslow on the charge of forgery. Sir Edward suggested that if his surrender were requested it might be refused, unless a stipulation was entered into that the fugitive should not be tried upon any offense other than that for which he was extra Whether this course, if adopted, grows out of the proceedings in the Lawrence case, or from a desire to make the extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain subject to the provisions of the British extradition act of August 9, 1870, I cannot say. You will remember that this act in section 3, under the head of "Restrictions on surrenders of criminals," provides that no criminal shall be surrendered unless provision is made by the law of the foreign state, or by arrangement, that the fugitive shall not be tried for any offense "other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded." If the course adverted to be caused by the Lawrence case, it may be well to say that it is believed that Lawrence has not, up to this time, been arraigned for any other than the extradition offense, and that no representation has been made to this Government on the question. If such a course is taken for any other reason, it may be said that Great Britain has on more than one occasion tried surrendered criminals on offenses other than those for which they were extradited, and such trials afford a practical construction of the scope of the treaty and of the power and rights of either Government as understood and applied by Great Britain for a period of nearly thirty years after the ratification thereof; and I cannot imagine that it will be claimed by Great Britain that either party to a treaty may at will, and by its own municipal legis lation, limit or change the rights which have been conceded to the other by treaty, and have been practically admitted for such length of time. I would also call your attention to the twenty-seventh section of the act of 1870, (ch. 52, 33, 34, Vict.,) repealing former acts under which extradition had theretofore been made; this section expressly excepts everything contained in the act inconsistent with the treaties referred to in the repealed acts, among which is the treaty with the United States. It seems to have been clearly the intent of Parliament not to apply to that treaty any of the provisions of the act inconsistent with the treaty, as it had existed and been_enforced for nearly thirty years. While I hope that no such demand will be made as intimated, you will object to any such stipulation being asked, and, should it be insisted upon, you will decline to give it, and, if necessary, telegraph to the Department for further instructions. Lord Derby calls attention to third clause, subsection two, of extradition act, and declines to give up Winslow unless promise is made by law or by arrangement that he shall be tried only for the extradition crime. SCHENCK. No. 884.] No. 106. General Schenck to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, March 2, 1876. (Received March 18.) SIR Referring to your dispatch No. 845, and to my telegram of this date, I have the honor to inclose to you a copy of a note I have received from Lord Derby upon the subject of the surrender of Winslow. Before receiving this note, though subsequent to its date, I had applied in the usual form for the surrender of the accused. Winslow was brought before the sitting magistrate to-day, the necessary proofs and papers were put in, and the prisoner was remanded till to-morrow to await notice from the foreign office that his surrender had been demanded by the United States Government. I have, &c., [Inclosure in No. 884.1 ROBT. C. SCHENCK. Lord Derby to General Schenck. FOREIGN OFFICE, February 29, 1876. SIR: I have the honor to state to you, that I have been informed by Her Majesty's secretary of state for the home department, that the chief magistrate of the Bow street police-court issued, on the 13th instant, upon the information of Colonel Chesebrough, of the United States legation, warrants for the apprehension, under the 8th section, clause second, of the extradition act, 1870, of Ezra D. Winslow, who is accused of the crime of forgery within the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Her Majesty's secretary of state for the home department, in communicating this to me, has drawn my attention to the third clause subsection 2 of the act, which is as follows: "A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a foreign state unless provision is made by the law of that state, or by arrangement, that the fugitive criminal shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to Her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in that foreign state for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition-crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded;" And has inquired whether any provision has been made by the law of the United States or by arrangement that Winslow, if surrendered, shall not, until he has been restored or had an opportunity of returning to Her Majesty's dominions, be detained or tried in the United States for any offense committed prior to his surrender other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded. The secretary of state for the home department fears that the claim advanced by your Government to try Lawrence in the recent case of extradition, with which you are familiar, for crimes other than the extradition crime for which he was surrendered, amounts to a denial that any such law exists in the United States; while the disclaimer by your Government of any implied understanding existing with Her Majesty's government in this respect, and the interpretation put upon the act of Congress of August 12, 1842, chapter 147, section 3, preclude any longer the belief in the existence of an effective arrangement, which Her Majesty's government had previously supposed to be practically in force. The secretary of state for the home department is accordingly compelled to state that, if he is correct in considering that no such law exists, he would have no power, in the absence of an arrangement, to order the extradition of Winslow, even though the extradition crime for which he has been arrested were proved against him, and the usual committal by the magistrate ensued thereupon. I have thought it right to lose as little time as possible in calling your attention to the intimation which I have thus received from Her Majesty's secretary of state for the home department; and I have the honor to request that you will bring the circumstances to the knowledge of your Government, in order that means may be found for the solution of the present difficulty. I have the honor, &c., DERBY. |